Right Angle began as a column in the now-defunct Sunday magazine in November 1991. The column allowed me the luxury of presenting an alternative to the prevailing left-liberal consensus in India. It has become the implicit signature tune for all my subsequent writings.

Saturday, March 03, 2012

CAUSE TO CELEBRATE - Peace and prosperity after bloodshed in Gujarat

By Swapan Dasgupta

It may sound callous, but there was something
patently disgusting about the way the media and activists colluded to turn a
grim 10th anniversary of the 2002 Gujarat riots into a celebration
of victimhood. From star anchors rushing to Ahmedabad to hug victims to the
over-use of the photograph of the unfortunate Qutubuddin Ansari pleading for
his life, every tear-jerking potential was cynically exploited. What should
have been a solemn occasion of remembrance, perhaps leading to a pledge to make
sectarian violence a thing of the past, was, instead, turned into an
all-too-familiar Indian tamasha,
culminating in riotous TV discussions.

The reason for this ugly turn of events should be
obvious. Ten years after the arson attack on the Sabarmati Express in Godhra
became the trigger for murderous violence throughout Gujarat, the issue of
‘justice’ has been transformed into a political blame game. The activists who
have doggedly kept the issue alive, despite the apparent lack of responsiveness
in Gujarat, have shifted their priorities markedly. The issue is no longer one
of securing punishment of the rioters and those responsible for inhuman conduct,
but the political targeting of one man: Chief Minister Narendra Modi.

The unspoken assumption is that justice will be
served if Modi can be prosecuted for personally facilitating the carnage. As an
additional bonus, the framing of charges against Modi is calculated to ensure
his exclusion from the political arena and consequently bring to an abrupt end
any possibility of him being in the reckoning for the Prime Minister’s post. In
short, if you can’t beat him, disqualify him.

Had Modi shown himself to be electorally vulnerable,
the need to fight him judicially would have evaporated. A Modi defeat in either
2002 or 2007 would have prompted the self-satisfied conclusion that “Gujarat
has redeemed itself”—in the same way as, it is proclaimed, Uttar Pradesh
redeemed itself by rejecting the Bharatiya Janata Party after the demolition of
the Babri shrine in 1992. However, the
prospects of the clutch of activists moving on to the next available cause have
dimmed following the realisation that not only has Modi strengthened himself
politically but that the Congress in Gujarat lacks the necessary qualities to
mount an effective challenge. Consequently, the only way they see to fight Modi
is to remove him from politics altogether.

There is another factor at work. Over the past 10
years, Modi has transformed Gujarat spectacularly. After winning the 2002
Assembly elections in a communally surcharged environment, he has deftly
shifted the political focus of Gujarat from sectarian identity issues to rapid
economic development. Gujarat was always an economically vibrant state and
entrepreneurship is deeply ingrained in the DNA of the average Gujarati. Modi
has played the role of a great facilitator by creating an environment that is
conducive to double digit growth of the state’s Gross Domestic Product. He has
toned up the administration, improved the finances of the state exchequer,
brought down corruption markedly and made every rupee expended on
government-run schemes a factor in economic value addition. Modi has been the
model Right-wing administrator pursuing the mantra of minimal but effective
governance. His election victory in 2007 wasn’t a consequence of Hindu-Muslim
polarisation; it was based on his ability to deliver good governance.

Secondly, Modi successfully shifted tack from Hindu
pride to Gujarati pride. This meant that hoary grievances centred on sectarian
hurt were subsumed by a common desire to take advantage of the dividends
flowing from a prolonged period of high economic growth. The popular mentality
of Gujarat has undergone a discernible shift in the past decade. In the 30
years since the Ahmedabad riots of 1969 which left nearly 650 people dead in
just five days of mayhem, Gujarat had become a riot-prone state.

With its sharp communal polarisation, Ahmedabad
epitomised that trend. After the 1969 flare-up, there were riots in 1971, 1972
and 1973. Then, after a period of lull, rioting resumed in January 1982, March
1984, March to July 1985, January 1986, March 1986, July 1986, January 1987,
February 1987, November 1987, April 1990, October 1990, November 1990, December
1990, January 1991, March 1991, April 1991, January 1992, July 1992, December
1992 and January 1993. This chronology, assembled by US-based political
scientist Ashutosh Varshney in his Ethnic
Conflict and Civil Life (2002) tells a story of unending curfews, social
insecurity and escalating hatred affecting the two communities. It was a story
replicated throughout Gujarat, including the otherwise integrated city of Surat
that witnessed fierce riots in 1993.

Since March 2002, Gujarat has been riot-free. Curfews
have become a thing of a distant past. What has occasioned this exemplary
transformation? The facile explanation, often proffered unthinkingly by
secularists anxious to find fault with Modi, is that Muslims have been too
cowed down by the sheer intensity of the post-Godhra majoritarian backlash.
Such an explanation presumes that riots are invariably begun by a section of
the Muslim community—a problematic proposition and not always empirically
sustainable.

More compelling is the explanation that factors the
larger administrative and economic changes in Gujarat over the past decade.
First, both the civil administration and the political leadership have
internalised the lessons from their inability to control mob violence in 2002.
The police has been given a free hand to operate without the interference of
small-time politicians attached to the ruling party. There has been a crackdown
against the illicit liquor trade and the underworld that gained its muscle
power from its proceeds. At the helm, there is an unspoken understanding that
another riot, with its attendant TV coverage, would extract an unacceptably
high political cost. That is why there is special attention paid to curbing
Hindu extremism—a phenomenon that will affect Modi most adversely.

The biggest change has, however, been at the
societal level. Gujarat today is a society that is obsessively preoccupied with
making money and taking advantage of the economic opportunities that have
presented themselves. With the end of boredom, a happy present and an appealing
future, the belief that riots are bad for dhanda
has seeped into society. This is not to suggest that the bitterness of the
past has been replaced by idyllic bonhomie between communities. Far from it.
Sectarian conflict persists in cities such as Ahmedabad, and less so in Surat.
But there is a distinction that Varshney makes between sectarian conflict and
sectarian violence. One need not necessarily lead to the other if contained
within the parametres of economics and politics. The Muslims of Gujarat don’t
possess the political clout they enjoyed earlier under Congress rule. But this
has been compensated by growing levels of prosperity. Those who argue that the
economic development of Gujarat has bypassed Muslims should look at the
economic empowerment of communities such as the Bohras, Khojas and Memons.

To many, Gujarat’s obsession with economic
betterment may seem an expression of denial for the larger societal involvement
in the 2002 riots. This may be partially true since Gujarati Hindus view the
post-Godhra troubles as something they don’t want to be reminded of incessantly—a
point which the state Congress has grudgingly acknowledged. But it doesn’t
distract from Modi’s undeniable success in changing the agenda dramatically in
10 years to the point where hardened Hindutva-wadis now regard him as an enemy
of the cause.

The riots of 2002
were horrible. But the important thing to note is that 10 years after the
butchery, Gujarat is basking in peace and unprecedented prosperity. Now, that
is something to celebrate.

3 comments:

Modi has proved himself as a cleaver politician. As soon as someone attacks him as anti-Muslim, he will counter himself as Pro-Hindu. But I think this anti-Modi rhetoric has gone on for too long. People want prosperity on all sides and that is what he is providing. Let peace prevail.

While I agree with you for the most part and also acknowledge the fact he has been successfully fighting his lonely battle against the media and the congress alike, I still feel he could have done much better by publicly sympathizing with the victim’s families. I believe this clearly stands out at as a blot in his otherwise illustrious ruling span. Moreover, I also feel that the recently concluded Sadbhavana Mission could have been toned down in terms of its religious fervor. With the overwhelming presence of Sadhu, Saints and Maulanas it resembled more like a religious conference than a gathering meant for societal cohesiveness and awakening.

Modi would welcome media's negative comments till atleast the state elections.Such negativism helps him and BJP! If he wins one more time in Gujarat, he is bound to become BJP's national president.In such an event, media's harping on his role in Gujarat in 2002 could look funny to millions of new voters.

About Me

The Right is an endangered community in India's English-language media. I happen to be one of the few to have retained a precarious toehold in the mainstream media. I intend this blog as a sounding board of ideas and concerns.
You can read the details of my education, professional experience and political inclinations on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swapan_Dasgupta).
RIGHT ANGLE is an archive of my published articles. USUAL SUSPECTS is my blog.